*Why are you a democrat? What incidences or ideas have led you to declare yourself to be a member of the party?

*If you oppose the war, would you vote for a moderate Democrat(Clark, Kerry, Lieberman, etc.) rather than vote for an independent anti-war candidate?

*If you say yes to question #2, convince me why I should do likewise.

As I've mentioned in a few past postings, I would (at this point) vote for the jacka** before I voted for a Republican. I was not always an avowed democrat - though most of my views are very liberal, I have often felt the democrats have a tendency to really be the moderate party - the deal makers so to speak, who like to come in saying something outrageous just to get the other side to move a little closer to the middle where they (the democrats) felt more comfortable in the first place. I also have felt for some time that except for a few democrats (often on the fringe), most dems felt better rolling over when pushed than actually taking a firm stand - building their houses on sand rather than stone so to speak.

But, the recent blatant disregard for the truth and obvious hatred of american citizens displayed by the administration and other Republicans in charge has lead me to be a much more vocal and adamant supporter of democrats. When I first heard Dean, I was quite interested in who this vocal guy was - someone with a spine! Well, so I thought at first, but with a closer look - and as he got more spotlight - the action hero for the democrats didn't look so great anymore. I disagree with Dean on several of his stances - esp some of his simplistic notions of just doing anything that would be the exact opposite of Bush - and I often feel like I am watching the yang for Bush's ying talk during the debates. I fervently hope another dem is chosen - Kucinich would be most in line with my views, but I would also like Edwards and then Kerry. Clark would be a last resort over Dean, but its hard to follow an elephant wearing a donkey mask! Still, were Dean or Clark chosen I would still vote for him over Bush any day of the week.

Now, many of my opinions on major issues would seem to paint me as someone more likely to vote for one of the many third party candidates - The environment must be protected from greedy corporations and our own human short-sightedness in order to ensure the continued health of the human race - not a century from now, not a decade from now, but the health of people and American's right now. I see major corporations as greedy, monstrous creatures - sometimes originally created with lofty goals - but as the machines form, they become more than the sum of their parts and cannot be controlled by any single person. These corporations have one goal - increased profits for the top executives. They seek to achieve this through the sacrifice of all else - even human life. Since I think Human life to be the most precious thing on this Earth, I feel the government should be the weapon of the people to be wielded against the steaming corporate machines. Oddly enough, I also want to pay my fair share of taxes (in order to support the continued work of the government) - and I think all members of this society should pay taxes in an amount proportional to their income as dues for membership in this society. I am a medical student with the potential of making money in the higher tax brackets, and I fully intend to pay my due. Thats not to say I will accept any old tax hike - each proposal has to be judged on its merits, and the people must be informed about how the taxes affect them. Additionally, the people have duties in this society - we must watch the government. The government is a machine just like any corporation and their is great potential for turning the machine to evil - so we as individuals have to use our voting rights and our first ammendment rights, etc to keep the government in check - make sure it is being used for the right purposes and not turned into another monster seeking to increase the profits of those at the helm.

So why don't I vote third party? Why would I vote for a moderate democrat (or even Dean) over an independent? Because I am also a cynic... its a fault of mine I know, but I like to look at realities. Reality - I don't forsee how any independent could ever become elected president and I don't want to waste my vote (though I have in the past voted for independents at all other levels of government, b/c I know they have a chance of winning then). I realize this is not a convincing argument, b/c there are many optimists who say "but that kind of thinking is what keeps the independent from winning" - but I think its the money that keeps the independent from winning. I have yet to see an independent with enough media coverage to get his views accurately expressed to the American people.

I also have another concern about independents and third parties - most run on single (or maybe double) issue platforms. These candidates have very limited sight... In pretty much all other levels of the government, and all other branches, a limited scope of goals is acceptable, and sometimes even necessary. But, in the office of the president - which has gained way more power than ever intended by our founding fathers - the vision needs to be wide angle. The president has to have knowledge in almost all possible fields, with expertise in as many as possible and an ability to surround himself with people who do have expertise in all fields. (something Bush has not done, though republicans may say he has - but that is for another thread). A candidate who runs on one idea - like save the environment or balance the budget, etc - but who remains mute or has very little to say about other areas worries me. I realize no candidate is an expert on every issue, and many may not even have a stand in many issues - but the major party candidates do find the experts during their campaign to help them come up with an opinion. So, essentially, I will not feel like I am voting blind - I won't have to say to myself "well, I like what this guy says about balancing the bugdet and equitable taxes, so I guess he'll probably think the same way I do about foreign relations and civil unions."

Okay, long winded response - I hope it answers the questions properly
I did try to shy away from discussing Bush, b/c I really didn't think this was the right place - even though it was his regime (as mentioned towards the beginning) that sort of pushed me over the edge to declare myself a democrat.

I recently switched from unaffiliated to Democrat because I always vote Democrat anyway. Figured I might as well join up after 30 some years of voting.

I'd vote for Kerry and less enthusiastically for Lieberman. The war issue is a done deal. Now it's a matter of how we get our butts out of there. My feeling is that any Democrat leadership would be better at this than the leadership we have now.

But we have more issues, especially domestic, with which to contend. Bush wants to colonize the moon and shoot for Mars.

What? Why? Well, deficit spending and job creation. Especially in Texas, eh? Get Texans to work!

At least that's my initial take. Deficit spending and tax cuts are supposed to stimulate the economy, by one economics professor I'm reading right now (Paul Krugman).

I think a Demo administration would push for jobs across the board. I'd hope such leadership would be open to an alternative way: Set the development of alternative energy tech as a national goal.

If we can go to Mars, we can do this. The benefits outweigh the Mars trip because not only would we be decades ahead of world competition, we'd not have so many reasons to go to war.

I'm voting Demo because it'll be a cold day in hell when Republicans push for alternative energy on a meaningful national basis. The Demos at least have this potential.

As for the war, again, done deal. Nobody can undo the past. However, we can affect the future. I think the Demos would be more willing to compromise to get our troops back home. The Repubs are pretty hard-headed on what they want.

Another reason to vote Demo is to get rid of Cheney (our second President) and the neo-con influences in the White House.

I like voting third party and I have never been pulled much by Democratic leadership. But I have been pushed so hard by the present administration that I would vote for any democratic president against Bush.

Hopefully in four years I won't be posting the same thought.

While I have voted mostly for Democrats in my past I have voted republican for governor of my state big mistake which we did not know at the time ( George Ryan). But that is another story lol. I view my self as a moderate because I don't agree with some of the issues of the Democrat party. Like affirmative action and giving amnesty to illegals as Kucinich said in the last debate. Although fundamentally I believe in the democrat policies.

I really don't see Lieberman as a moderate but more conservative because of his voting record and what he says. The reason I am supporting Dean is he had the guts to stand up to what this adminstration was doing when it was uncool to as the people that voted for this war, because they thought Bush would keep his promises of trying to work thru the UN. When I knew, Dean knew, Kucinich knew, Sharpton knew and so did Mosley Braun knew that obviously the Senators and Representatives did not know and they had more information then any of us did or the candidates in decent, but I do not hold that against them rather when they go after Dean for being anti-war that is what I hold against them. Because Dean and the others were right.

The policies that have made me side with the democrats are the evironment, reusable energy, the support of the middle and lower classes, healthcare issues, diplomatic policies, foreign and domestic policies just to name the few that I can think of right now.

For starters, pretty much everything I stand or is on the far left side of the spectrum and I'd rather declare myself (in the current system, anyway) as a Dem so that I can at least have SOME say in who I think will best represent my views (of the two major parties, that is). I don't think I ever had much thought to do anything BUT declare myself as a Dem...though I have voted third party (Green - where my heart REALLY lies) frequently. I just see my declaration as more of a way to get my voice represented by someone who has a real shot. I voted Green in 2000 though because I couldn't stand the other options (didn't matter much anyway, being an Arizona voter...though we are getting less attached to Republicans in AZ, from what I've seen in the polling numbers.



Yes and no (hehe). This is a tricky question because in one instance, I think it would be WORSE to vote for Lieberman than to not vote or vote independent...I think I'd rather deal with another 4 yrs of Bush (*shudder*) than risk electing a fake Democrat when there is little chance of seeing a REAL Dem in office for at least 8 yrs. as a result. At least with Bush it's only 4 yrs. before we'd have a real shot at a win. But other than Lieberman, I probably would vote for anyone if it would get Bush out of office. Clark is my second choice behind Dean and I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. He's a great guy but Dean's politics are more aligned with mine and I think he's got more support. Now a Dean-Clark ticket...that's the best thing we've got to beat Bush (IMO). I sure hope whomever of the two comes away with the nomination (and I'm fairly certain it will be one of those two...most likely Dean, but Clark could surpass him with the undecided voters) realizes that they would be best served (in the public eye) by teaming up with the other. Clark and his military service (my husband worked for the SACEUR who replaced Clark, General Ralston - as such worked for a LOT of people who worked under Clark and they all loved the man - Repubs and Dems alike) and expertise would be great against Bush. Dean's fiscal record is also great against spend-happy Bush.

As far as 'anti-war', that's really neither here nor there right now. I think we're committed to finishing what we started (even though I hate the fact that we started it, we can't exactly leave until we've done some good over there) and I don't foresee a candidate's anti-war stance having THAT much of an impact in the upcoming term...I'm sure some of them are not totally anti-war, but anti-war under the circumstances of the Iraq war. Unilateral (and yes, I think our action was unilateral) action probably is the main reason for the 'anti-war' sentiment (and I totally agree). Sorry...starting to ramble, plus I need to get to bed!

*Why are you a democrat? What incidences or ideas have led you to declare yourself to be a member of the party?

I have declared myself as a democrat partially because of my liberal stance on many issues:
- pro choice
- pro civil rights
- pro environment
- pro big business and industry regulation
- pro govt programs / spending (we could be doing so much more good domestically to further our greatness)
- pro gun control
- pro gay / minority rights

Secondly, the Republican party typically caters to the religious right, which I absolutely loathe. I believe that kind of extremism is not only bad for progress, it is also dangerous for America and breeds hate amongst our citizens.

Finally, I don't buy into the give the rich tax breaks just because they will come to our fund raisers and spend 20k a plate. The whole point of forming a government is so that resources can be pooled for the common good. It is in our best interest to help out each American and help them grow and prosper and we don't do that by focusing strictly on the wealthiest Americans. When you have that amount of money you should be less concerned with counting it endlessly and trying to grow richer, and more concerned with building a future for the country because you are in a unique position to do so. Stewardship is in my opinion, one of the responsibilities and burdens of being rich that so many Republicans ignore.


*If you oppose the war, would you vote for a moderate Democrat(Clark, Kerry, Lieberman, etc.) rather than vote for an independent anti-war candidate?

*If you say yes to question #2, convince me why I should do likewise.

I would vote for a more moderate Democrat (although I wouldn't vote for Lieberman because I think he is a republican in democrat's clothing) because I believe that a moderate Democrat would show more sense about starting a war than the Bush Administration has. History may show that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, Saddam was after all evil, but I completely disagree with the reasons and the lies and the way that we shunned our allies and just decided to go in there ourselves.

I believe that were one of the more moderate Democrats would have taken more time to study the situation, given diplomacy and inspections more of a chance and would have never shunned our allies the way that we did. Instead they would have built consensus, listened to concerns, tried to understand the motivations of other countries, and only acted when we had buy-in for our actions as well as fiscal and military support.

The way to win the war on terror is not through brute force, although that is a tool in the tool chest. The way to win is to build alliances, build consensus for our actions. Each time we crush an Iraq and bring an end to a regime, we spawn thousands of people ready and willing to take the place of Osama Bin Laden.

Aw dude, I feel so important now that I can talk crap and actually vote like everyone else now
I'm a democrat because of everything that Cube Jockey listed, and I especially emphasize with his loathing of the religious right. Religion is the number one reason I am a democrat - what is America without religious freedom? The separation of church and state is of utmost importance to me, because really, once you do that, everything else sort of falls into place - gays are allowed the right to marry because there's no religious text dictating they can't - women will have complete control over their reproductive abilities because, once again, there's no religious text telling them they can't - heck, nearly everything republicans stand for is religiously motivated if you go back far enough. Take religion out of it and all you are left with is the facts to base a decision on, and the facts state that homosexuality is not a choice; the facts state that an embryo is not a fully formed, fully functional human being (and therefore not entitled to the same rights as those who are). I like basing my opinions on facts and logic, and therefore I identify the most with the democratic platform.

I'd vote for a moderate democrat, simply because they would have the biggest chance of getting the current, rabidly pro-war administration kicked out... and partly because I believe that we now have a responsibility for Iraq and its people.

Dennis Kucinich is the candidate that sees straight.

Kucinich talks straight and walks straight.

If He were to leave and join the International Green Party, I would jump ship with him.

There is an end of war plan that beats all others! Kucinich will pull Us out now and put the UN in now!

Anyway, what I'm posting about is this following poll.


"Who is your preference for Democratic presidential nominee?"

- http://www.truthout.org

Kucinich = 44.8%

Dean = 32.2%

& Kucinich has been going up.

36.3% - 36.5% - 42.4% - 42.9% - 43.4% - 44.8% & going up.



420%


& in case anyone hasn't heard:

Democratic Presidential nominee, Dennis Kucinich, put in writing that as PRESIDENT He WILL:

"DECRIMINALIZE MARIJUANA" -"in favor of a drug policy that sets reasonable boundaries for marijuana use by establishing guidelines similar to those already in place for alcohol."

(POSTED ON His website!)

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/marijuana_decrim.php
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17917.shtml


You show Me a doctor who supports caging His brother for using a plant, and I'll show You a poor example of a Democrat!

Why should you vote Democrat:

Answer this question :

Name one single legislative act, conceived and enacted into law by the Republican Party that is benificial to the American People.

Do the same for the Democrats .


Is their really any choice.

Why am I a Democrat? The lesser of two evils . No, I agree with many more of their policies that Republicans, although not all of them. Every time I try to convince myself that there are some circumstances that would cause me to vote for Bush, I can't see it. I think he has done some good things, but that the Repub. policies in general seem hard for a person of my principles to swallow.

I am not sure if Democrat perfectly describes me, but I would say Clintonian sure does!

*Why are you a democrat? What incidences or ideas have led you to declare yourself to be a member of the party?

Gee this is a question I have been considering lately, actually I really don't feel a connection with the party any longer. Initially woman's choice issues brought me to the party and I was very content with Clinton for a term and a half. All and all the party has represented me well in the past. As of late the rhetoric has swayed way too left and in no way represents me. I have and continue to support our action in Iraq. What I consider Clintons greatest failing (other than he lied under oath) to be his lack of action in our defense of terrorism.
I knew Osama's name after the 1st trade center bombing. I knew his feelings of us and I felt vulnerable. If I understood this for all these years I must question how our Gov. could not have known and why was it left least unmonitored. On that note, for me to vote for an anti-war candidate would be counterproductive as well as launch us into another period of vulnerability. My greatest fear is that an anti-war candidate will get into office, pull us out without completing the job and we will leave in our wake an unstable government ready to be occupied by fundamental extremism and a new foothold for terrorists i.e. Afghanistan. I realize my perspective is some what skewed as I have lived in NYC as well as the vicinity of NYC my whole life. I have witnessed first hand both bombings and live with all of the memorials to all that have died throughout my community. I am constantly reminded of what lengths those that wish to do us harm will go to in order to achieve their goal.


*If you oppose the war, would you vote for a moderate Democrat(Clark, Kerry, Lieberman, etc.) rather than vote for an independent anti-war candidate?

Sorry I guess I am the type of Dem that might force you to consider this choice, I can only hope so.

Why are you a democrat? What incidences or ideas have led you to declare yourself to be a member of the party?

If for no other reason, I was a union member for over thirty years, and I repeatedly saw the Republicans take the management side of every issue relating to jobs, minimum wage, Social Security, taxes...

If you oppose the war, would you vote for a moderate Democrat?(Clark, Kerry, Lieberman, etc.) rather than vote for an independent anti-war candidate?

Yes. I have never voted Independent, as I truly hope that occasionally my vote counts for more than a protest.

I am afraid that whether or not we should be, we are in involved in a few wars. We need to recognize the lessons of Vietnam, and withdraw. At the same time, we will have to repair, to the extent we can, the damages of war and help restore independent governments to Iraq and Afghanistan. I feel that the most Liberal Democrat has more idea of Conservative American values than GWB.

If you say yes to question #2, convince me why I should do likewise.

I have been looking at the REPUBLICAN PLATFORM 2000. I found at least four issues on which the Republicans want to amend the Constitution. (A constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget, a "human life" amendment to the Constitution, "a constitutional amendment that will restore to the people, through their elected representatives, their right to safeguard Old Glory," and A constitutional amendment to protect victims' rights at every stage of the criminal justice system.


It may have a controversial opinion that was spoken by one of the Dixie Chicks, but the President of the United States made it a national issue with his recommendation that people boycott their records and concerts. Those of us who opposed the war were suddenly being told that it was unpatriotic to criticize the war, the President, the government, etc.

Of course in the previous paragraph of their platform, they wanted to enact "Paycheck Protection" that would prevent unions from being politically active; so perhaps their was no real intent by the Republicans to allow dissent to begin with.


I have attended religious services at churches for the past three decades or so, that ask less faith in God and religious process than the Republican Platform. If there is to be any credibility to the separation of church and state, it won't be found in their platform.

I have heard all kinds of denial that the war in Iraq is over "WMDs," downgraded from Weapons of Mass Destruction, and recently downgraded to “weapons of mass destruction programs” (I noted that even the capital letters have been downgraded to lower case in the transcript.) in the State of the Union Address. Nonetheless, the claims of Iraq’s “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” including "additional nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons." were made in the REPUBLICAN PLATFORM 2000.

President Bush has a hit list of countries that he apparently still wants to push around, and has a demonstrated disregard for international as well as domestic opinion, international law, and historic American policies. It’s a strange definition of “Conservative” to say the least.


Does he truly believe that the rest of the world produces no wealth?

At this point, I would consider a pro-war democrat the lesser of two evils when compared to a lame duck, war-mongering, equivocating, President. It is not the best criteria in the world, but it would seem that in Florida in 2000, the votes for the third party candidates were in essence a vote for George W. Bush. I can’t afford to cast my vote that way this year, and I hope you can’t either.

I'm a democrat because I always disagreed with the ideas I heard coming from Republicans. I listened to what both sides had to say and I just happened to agree more with the left than with the right.

My entire family is Republican however so it makes it very difficult for me around the house with everyone constantly debating me on minute details of everything. That and blaring the Fox News Channel to try and convert me to their side.



I really don't like the war on terrorism that we are fighting right now. It doesn't make very much sense to me that we're over there in the first place fighting an invisible enemy while trying to protect people that really don't want us interferring in the first place.

I like Kerry a lot and think he would make a fine president. From the looks of things he'll be the one to face Bush in the November elections. And that'll be fine with me.



You should do likewise because without a doubt if we have a somewhat moderate democrat going for office against Bush we have a higher likelyhood of getting in. The competition is stiff and without someone that can appeal to the majority we are sunk as a political party this year and Bush will keep dragging down the education and environmental funding. He'll also make sure that the Patriot I Act is renewed. Not to mention his ridiculous delusions about the space program, sucking down money out the good taxpayers he's conning.

I recently registered as a Democrat, because I want to participate in the primaries this year. I had previously been registered as an independent, but I've come to the realization that the Democratic spectrum is huge, and there is a place for me there. <shrug>



I am a fence-sitter when it comes to the war, and I intend to vote for Kerry who was pro-war but also has valid criticisms about the way in which the war was handled. That's pretty much where I'm sitting, as well.

It's interesting that several years ago the term "Democratic" was co-opted by the word "Democrat." Look at and pronounce both words. Which word brings up the more positive image to you? This was done by the Republicans when Reagan was in office, I believe. Just a subtle change, but now the last syllable is "rat." Coincidence? So now it is commonly referred to as the "Democrat" party by many 'Publicans.

Democrats have, for the majority of my life, been the party most concerned about helping the little guy, giving him/her a fair shake. Although the programs have often been expensive and there was waste involved, to be sure, one was never in doubt that a Congressperson of this party allegiance would be more responsive to the needs of the electorate.

No, I would not stand with any political party regardless of what they did. That is irresponsible. And it is because the Republican administration has not been forthcoming with the American people and has waged a reckless war on Iraq that I have finally, officially, become a member of the Democratic Party.

I have almost always voted Democratic, but joked that if I won more than $40 million in the State Lottery, that I might feel wealthy enough to join the Republican party. When I followed Paladin Elspeth's example and joined the Democratic Party a few days ago, I also followed her suggestion and listed President George W. Bush as the one person who was to be credited with recruiting me. It hit me as a reality, that even if I felt I could afford it; the current Republican Party, with its Contract on America, and attempting to put a stranglehold on the world, is not a party I would wish to belong to.


Would I vote for a yellow dog on the Democratic slate, rather than vote for a third party candidate whose position I agreed with? Yes!


As an opponent to the war in Iraq, there are 4 options:
Vote for the Democratic Candidate.
Vote for the Republican Candidate.
Vote for a Third Party Candidate.
Don't vote.

Option 1: Vote for the Democratic Candidate.
All of the candidates have, to a greater or lesser extent, stated their opposition to the war in Iraq. Their positions range from call in the UN and pull out immediately, to a phased withdrawal with reconstruction. If you not only vote for a Democrat for President, but vote a straight Democratic ticket; we might even elect an extra Congressman or Senator with a resultant shift in the whole power structure. It might be possible to enact exit strategies from Iraq and Afghanistan, and implement an honest investigation into why we were ever there to begin with.

Option 2: Vote for the Republican Candidate.
The Republican Platform 2000 , dated July 31st - August 3rd, 2000 precedes the events of 9/11/2001 by more than 13 months. Among the "Faith Based Initiatives" the Republicans adopted as policy, were:
That's right, all the charges that Colin Powell presented to the United Nations as "Top Secret" and "Intelligence Reports" had been released in a public document before George W. Bush was named as "the winner" by a Supreme Court Decision. Now "W The President," as he is known on his "Official Blog" merchandise site wants us to accept that he is looking into the "Intelligence Failures" that led us into the war with Iraq. He is appointing a commission to investigate, where he will appoint all the members, review all the evidence, and reach a conclusion as to who he can blame. Results of the report will be made public after he has been inaugurated for a second term. "Intelligence Failures" that I can suggest are the voters who voted for him, the Supreme Court Justices who had been appointed by his father, his brother who promised him the Florida vote, etc.

Then of course there is the BushRice04.org web site which is promoting re-electing Bush with a new Vice President...

Option 3: Vote for a Third Party Candidate.
Let's say that as a third party candidate, I represent everything that you want in a President. I can promise you job security, early retirement, a cut in taxes at only your income level, peace secured with a military base in your home town, cheap power from a dam project that creates a lake in your back yard and puts the obnoxious neighbor's house under water... Somehow, I garner 3 Electoral College votes, and the other 49 states split their votes evenly. The election is sent to the House of Representatives to decide. It's basically unlikely it will be anything other than a two party system by November. The majority of the House are Republicans, who will likely vote along party lines for option 2. We would continue to be led by President Rove and his puppets.

Option 4: Don't vote.
I used to teach a Sunday School curriculum on Decision Making and Responsibility. Part of the curriculum materials provided was a sign we put on the wall.


The Republican Party seems to be promoting the concept that the Democratic Field is so weak, and their President IS so strong, powerful, and Presidential, (What other President was ever so presidential as to put on a flight suit to impress the journalists when he landed on an aircraft carrier!?) that... There's no need for anyone to turn up at the polls to waste their time and money expressing any other opinion! In Michigan, the Democratic Caucus will be held on Saturday. Normally gas prices rise on Thursday for the weekend, and drop on Monday because that's when AAA measures the gas prices across the state. Monday, the price of gas locally went up by over 30 cents a gallon, something which will surely discourage some people from getting in the car to go cast their vote. If it is raised another 20 cents (typical) for the weekend, it may actually affect the turnout. If it does, I can foresee a sudden uptick in the price of gas on or before November 1...

In summary:
You can vote Democratic, and hope that your vote will make a difference.

I feel that the Democratic Party as a whole is reacting to an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the way things are. Americans are watching our jobs go down the drain of automation, and overseas to laborers willing to work for a dollar or two per hour. Republican stockholders are saying, "That's Capitalism at work!" and "That's good business." I got an e-mail today with the message that "In Mexico, on $600 a month, you can afford a 3 bedroom hacienda complete with a maid and a gardener." You'll need to learn the language, and live as an expatriate, but every plan has it's drawbacks. It also failed to point out that at hourly wages below $2 an hour, you can't earn $600 a month.

You can vote Republican, because you like living in fear of attack, having your travel monitored, knowing that the government wants to know what books you're reading, what purchases you're making, and wants you to feel that if homosexual marriage was allowed, that your marital partner would now be willing to leave you for another man or another woman. (Was it Woody Allen that said "Being bisexual doubles your chance for a date on a Saturday night."?)

You can, in an ineffective protest, vote for a third party candidate or not vote at all.

We can try to elect whatever Democrat emerges from the pack, Senator Kerry at the moment, or we can watch as the Republicans re-elect Karl Rove and Condoleezza Rice and then "W The President." There have been a few of us saying of this President, "The Emperor has no brains." The Republicans seem to be replying, "Yes, but he is a Republican Emperor!"

I had hoped that we were electing a President in 2000, and I have never been so disappointed! If we are to live in a Democracy again, we need to send as many Democrats to Washington this year as we can. If we happen to elect a Yellow Dog or two in the process, we can hope they'll be friendly to us if we remember to scratch their ears. If we allow the Republican steamroller to dismantle our Democracy any further, it may be very hard to rebuild an America that we can pass on to our children with pride.

If you want to empower a third party, circulate a petition, run for office, work hard, and make a difference. I always maintained that a third party would emerge when it had the courage to go after the states that had three Electoral College votes, and let the two major parties fight over the Electoral College votes from the larger states. It would take fewer actual votes to gain a plurality. I could always argue that well enough, at least, that it made sense to the other inmates at the mental hospital.

First: Welcome aboard PE and Curm. It’s good to see such level headedness joining the ranks and I have a feeling that you all are just the first of many Independents who are tired of the current administration and see any alternative as a better option.

*Why are you a democrat? What incidences or ideas have led you to declare yourself to be a member of the party?
My father was a politician and a cog in the Democratic Party. Naturally I followed suit but not as a blind sheep. I asked him when I was very young why he wasn’t a Republican and his answer was similar to what many have already stated: Democrats are typically For the People, they have tendencies to enact laws that helps us all out, not just the wealthy. And they are typically more concerned about our environment.

Of course some of this went over my head but two keys things I walked away with as a 10 year old were: the environment and helping us all out.

As I grew older it was obvious to see he was right. But we both to this day remain as conservative as a Democrat can be labeled (of course my views were much more liberal when I was younger, as they should be).

*If you oppose the war, would you vote for a moderate Democrat(Clark, Kerry, Lieberman, etc.) rather than vote for an independent anti-war candidate
I remember the first time my father picked me up from piano lessons. It was his inital meeting with my instructor and after introductions he asked her if she was registered to vote (he never missed an opportunity).

Her reply. “It was about 2 years into the depression and I remember praying to the good Lord that if he ever got us out of this mess I would never vote for another Republican. Since then I’ve never missed an election and I’ve never voted for another Republican.”

Now I don’t have quite that conviction but I oppose the war and I’d still vote for Kerry or Clark as I think they both would make an outstanding Commander in Chief. They know the price of war in both dollars and lives so I view this as a strength in ending the current ‘occupation’ and being more cautious (read: evidence) for starting another war. And I also feel they would have more tact in the war on terrorism.

But I wouldn’t be opposed to voting for an Independent if there was more substance to their platform than anti-war. I have often abstained in voting in a particular race ( and yes, on occasion I have, er, um, [cough] [looks both ways] ventured over to the dark side and caste my vote).

Well, no matter what is a tricky issue. The Republicans, back in the time of Jefferson and again with Lincoln, were much more liberal than the Republicans of today. I don't know if I would always support the Party, but I would always support Liberalism.

In this election, I support the party. At this point in time, the most important thing is getting Bush out of office. Clinton had everything pretty well set out for Bush with a 4 trillion dollar surplus, the US Army already in position to take out Al Queada, a sudden spike in the quality of education. And then Bush came along and made a mess of things.

It can't be obvious enough that Bush is paying back old favors. What ever happened to Enron? and Ken Lay? Has he gone to trial yet?

Bush never put his life on the line unless he was driving drunk and yet he's more than willing to throw our your children into harm's way. Kerry, at least, has seen war and seen how people can be manipulated by the powers that be.

Bush and his administration are ruining America. This country stood for freedom and equality. With the USA PATRIOT Act Freedom isn's what is used to be and with the polarization of the economy equality is a thing of the past.

[color]Edited to removed vulgar, profane comment[/color=blue]